Bush’s presidential library will produce a public television show titled ‘Ideas In Action.’
Bush’s presidential library will produce a public television show titled ‘Ideas In Action.’
President Bush’s presidential library at the Southern Methodist University in Dallas (the “George W. Bush Presidential Center”) will house a think tank called the George W. Bush Institute, which will promote ideas centered around “the principles of freedom, opportunity, responsibility and compassion.” The Huffington Post reports that the Institute will co-produce a new television show titled “Ideas In Action”:
The George W. Bush Institute — the “action- oriented think tank” that is part of Bush’s Presidential Center — will co-produce a public television show hosted by its executive director, Ambassador James Glassman.
“Ideas in Action” will premiere in February and will be co-produced by Andrew Walworth, who produces PBS’s “Think Tank.” Glassman, the former Undersecretary of State for Public Diplomacy under President Bush and one-time moderator of CNN’s “Capital Gang Sunday,” will lead a discussion on public policy issues in front of a live audience at Southern Methodist University in Dallas. He will remain executive director of the Institute.
The show will be distributed by Executive Program Services (EPS) to public television stations nationwide, including many PBS affiliates. Beginning in January, EPS will also begin distributing repeats of “Think Tank,” currently distributed by PBS.
Given the vast unpopularity of Bush’s “ideas in action” over the past eight years, it will be interesting to see how his team continues to revise the historical record.
- Comments
- 127
Americans Judge The Bush Decade: ‘Awful’ And ‘Not So Good’
Americans Judge The Bush Decade: ‘Awful’ And ‘Not So Good’
A new NBC/Wall Street Journal poll finds that Americans are entering 2010 with a negative view of the events of the past decade, which was largely marked by President Bush’s tenure from 2001-2009:
According to the poll, a combined 58% said the decade was either “awful” or “not so good,” 29% said it was fair, and just 12% said it was either “good” or “great.” [...]
Asked what they thought had the greatest negative impact on America this past decade, 38% cited the 9/11 terrorist attacks, 23% picked the mortgage and housing crisis, 20% said the Iraq war, 11% chose the stock market crash, and 6% said Hurricane Katrina.
But 37% said it lost ground on the environment, 46% said it lost ground on health and well being, 50% said it lost ground on peace and national security, 54% said lost ground on the nation’s sense of unity, 55% said it lost ground in treating others with respect, 66% said it lost ground on moral values, and a whopping 74% said it lost ground on economic prosperity.
Census Bureau figures released in September largely support the public’s pessimistic take on the last decade:
On every major measurement, the Census Bureau report shows that the country lost ground during Bush’s two terms. While Bush was in office, the median household income declined, poverty increased, childhood poverty increased even more, and the number of Americans without health insurance spiked. By contrast, the country’s condition improved on each of those measures during Bill Clinton’s two terms, often substantially. [...]
Bush built his economic strategy around tax cuts, passing large reductions both in 2001 and 2003. … But the bleak economic results from Bush’s two terms, tarnish, to put it mildly, the idea that tax cuts represent an economic silver bullet.
The poll comes as loyal Bushies are attempting to rewrite the former president’s legacy and delude the public into believing that the country’s current problems are all the fault of President Obama. Former White House adviser Karl Rove, for example, has been all over the media, issuing statements like the Bush administration has “no” responsibility for current budget deficits. Bush officials have even tried to claim that they made Afghanistan a top priority and that Obama is the one who has been screwing up their work. Fox News host Sean Hannity has gone so far as to say that Bush deserved the Nobel Peace Prize, and Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) is claiming that the cure to the country’s problems is to just give political control back to Republicans (which was true for a large part of the last decade).
Historians have ranked Bush as one of the top 10 worst presidents in U.S. history and believe his legacy will most resemble that of former presidents Richard Nixon and Herbert Hoover. Time magazine recently did a feature calling the past 10 years the “decade from Hell.”
Sen. Hatch’s Solution For The Economy: Put The Country ‘Back Into Conservative Republican Hands’
Sen. Hatch’s Solution For The Economy: Put The Country ‘Back Into Conservative Republican Hands’
Today, Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) appeared on Fox Business and unleashed an angry tirade against the Democratic majority in Congress. As Fox host Alexis Glick fawned over the senior Republican senator — praising his characterization of Democrats’ policy ideas as “doggone stupid” — Hatch agreed that Democrats are trying to “socialize the country.”
Towards the end of the interview, Glick asked him what his “solutions” are to the problems the country faces, prompting Hatch to respond that he’d start by putting the country “back into conservative Republican hands” and keeping the Bush tax cuts:
FOXBIZ: What are your solutions to jobs, the unemployment situation, rising health care costs, energy costs that are rising, inflation that is still a concern, how do we solve these issues right now? Are we trying to do too much too quickly?
HATCH: Number one you get the arrogance of power by throwing the Democrats and get the control back into conservative Republican hands. Number two we should not do away with the Bush tax cuts, those marginal tax cuts are a major help to try and keep the economy going. Number three we should use fifty state labratories to do health care.
Watch it:
While the country continues to face enormous economic problems — like a double-digit unemployment rate and the number of Americans on food stamps hitting an all-time high — there is little evidence that a return to the policies pursued by conservatives that Hatch favors would do anything to improve the situation.
During the last year of President Bush’s term, the median household income in the United States dropped 3.6 percent to $50,303, the sharpest drop since the government began keeping records in 1947. During Bush’s tenure, the number of Americans in poverty increased 26.1 percent, while child poverty jumped 21.4 percent. In total, the Bush years saw 8.3 million people fall into poverty.
There was one group, however, that did well under the Bush years Hatch seems to yearn for. The Congressional Budget Office found in 2007 that families “earning more than $1 million a year saw their federal tax rates drop more sharply than any group in the country as a result of President Bush’s tax cuts,” prompting the New York Times to conclude that “rich families were the undisputed winners from President Bush’s tax cuts.”
LeBron James wants to ‘dunk on’ President Bush’s ‘ass.’
LeBron James wants to ‘dunk on’ President Bush’s ‘ass.’
Cleveland Cavaliers superstar LeBron James is widely considered to be one of the best professional basketball players of all time, but in an interview in next month’s Maxim magazine, he says his ideal opponent would be someone better known for clearing brush than shooting hoops. If given the opportunity to dunk on anyone in the world, LeBron says it would be George W. Bush’s “ass”:
[INTERVIEWER]: If there was one guy on the planet you could dunk on, who would it be? That teacher?
[JAMES]: If it doesn’t have to be a basketball player, George W. Bush. I would dunk on his ass, break the rim, and shatter the glass.
Getting dunked on is considered an embarrassing insult in basketball terminology.
(HT: Huffington Post)
Fox News’ Neil Cavuto: “Is this now the ‘Bush Recovery’”?
Fox News’ Neil Cavuto: “Is this now the ‘Bush Recovery’”?
For months and months, conservatives blamed President Obama for the slumping stock market. “Obama, since he’s elected, has tanked the markets,” Fox News’ Sean Hannity said in March. Now that the Dow has rebounded to over 10,000, what are the conservatives saying? On his Fox News today, Neil Cavuto claimed the stock market rebound is evidence of a “Bush recovery”:
Sean Hannity on Nobel Peace Prize: ‘Frankly, I would’ve given it to George Bush.’
Sean Hannity on Nobel Peace Prize: ‘Frankly, I would’ve given it to George Bush.’
Last night, Fox News host Sean Hannity hosted a panel that debated the merits of President Barack Obama’s Nobel Peace Prize. After complaining about Obama’s goal of eliminating nuclear weapons and claiming that the Nobel is undesirable because Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat receieved it, Hannity suggested an alternative recipient for the award — former President George W. Bush:
HANNITY: [Yasser Arafat] got the Nobel peace prize. Excuse me, a terrorist got the Nobel peace prize. Some people deservedly so. You know who else deserved it? Ronald Reagan. And frankly, I would’ve given it to George Bush.
Watch it:
As many commentators have noted, the Nobel Prize appears to have been motivated in part by anti-Bush sentiment, which makes Hannity’s suggestion particularly absurd. After all, George W. Bush engaged in the torture of detainees, waged an unprovoked and illegal war, and brought about the largest protests in history against U.S. policies — hardly behavior that is fitting for a Nobel Peace Prize.
(HT: TP reader Mark)
Nobel Prize Winner Elizabeth Blackburn Was An Outspoken Opponent Of Bush’s Politicization Of Science
Nobel Prize Winner Elizabeth Blackburn Was An Outspoken Opponent Of Bush’s Politicization Of Science
Yesterday, three American scientists — Elizabeth Blackburn, Carol Greider, and Jack Szostak — were awarded the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for their contributions to the study of cell biology in a way that positively impacts our understanding of cancer and aging.
One of the stories not being covered about the Nobel winners is that one of them, Australian-American researcher Elizabeth Blackburn, played a “brave role” in exposing the Bush administration’s anti-science policies, particularly with respect to blocking embryonic stem cell research.
Shortly after the 9/11 terrorist attack, Blackburn was appointed a member of the “President’s Council of Bioethics,” the body charged with “advising the President on ethical issues related to advances in biomedical science and technology.” “Like everyone during that time, I wanted to do something, anything,” she told the press.
An “outspoken advocate” for embryonic stem cell research, Blackburn objected to President Bush’s position on the issue, which was to veto legislation that would have freed up federal funding for it. While the council is supposed to exist to provide a variety of views to the President on a whole host of bioethics issues, Blackburn soon found that under the Bush administration, “scientific research…[was] being manipulated for political ends.”
Eventually, the Bush administration decided that it would no longer tolerate Blackburn’s dissent. On Feb. 27, 2004, the administration dismissed Blackburn and another dissident scientist, Dr. William May, from the council. Dean Clancy, the executive director of the council, maintained that politics had nothing to do with her dismissal, telling the press, “The charge that she was let go because of her policy views is utterly without merit.”
Yet scientists around the country were not convinced. Following her dismissal, more than 170 researchers sent an open letter to the President protesting the decision. Janet Rowley, University of Chicago medical professor and fellow council member, told USA Today that she agreed with the researchers that Blackburn was fired for her views, “Liz is an important example of the absolutely destructive practices of the Bush administration.”
For her part, Blackburn said that she didn’t “feel martyred.” Rather, she said she saw her dismissal as “a badge of honor.” Following her firing, she wrote a scathing indictment of her time on the council in the New England Annals of Medicine, writing that science should be “protected from the influence of politics“:
As a naturalized citizen of the United States, I have an immigrant’s love for my country. But our country must not fail us. Scientific advice should and must be protected from the influence of politics. Will the President’s Council on Bioethics be up to that challenge?
Blackburn will receive one-third of the $1.4 million prize granted to the trio of researchers. She is the first Australian woman to ever win the Nobel Prize.
Iraqi shoe thrower being showered by ‘offers and gifts’ upon his anticipated release from prison.
Iraqi shoe thrower being showered by ‘offers and gifts’ upon his anticipated release from prison.
Last December, Iraqi journalist Muntadar al-Zaidi made headlines across the world when he hurled his shoes at President Bush during a press conference in Baghdad. Although al-Zaidi was originally sentenced to three years in prison, Iraqi courts recently decided to release him on Sept. 14 for “good behavior.” Now, the Guardian is reporting that al-Zaidi is being inundated “by offers and gifts” from all over his country:
From his prison cell, Zaidi has a sense of the gathering fuss, but not the full extent of the benefactors and patrons preparing for his release.
A new four-bedroom home has been built by his former boss. A new car – and the promise of many more – awaits.
Pledges of harems, money and healthcare are pouring in to his employers, the al-Baghdadia television channel.
“One Iraqi who lived in Morocco called to offer to send his daughter to be Muntazer’s wife,” said editor Abdul Hamid al-Saij.
“Another called from Saudi offering $10m for his shoes, and another called from Morocco offering a gold-saddled horse.
For his part, al-Zaidi has told the press that he plans to leave journalism and open an orphanage upon his release.
Decision to end ‘Reading Rainbow’ traced to a ‘shift’ in priorities during the Bush administration.
Decision to end ‘Reading Rainbow’ traced to a ‘shift’ in priorities during the Bush administration.
“Reading Rainbow,” of the most beloved and long-running children’s education shows, is airings its last episode today. The show, hosted by actor LeVar Burton, started in 1983. John Grant, who is in charge of programming at Reading Rainbow’s home station, explains that part of the reason the show is ending is because no one — including PBS and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) — wants to continue funding it. The other reason can be traced back to a “shift” in priorities during the Bush administration:
Grant says the funding crunch is partially to blame, but the decision to end Reading Rainbow can also be traced to a shift in the philosophy of educational television programming. The change started with the Department of Education under the Bush administration, he explains, which wanted to see a much heavier focus on the basic tools of reading — like phonics and spelling.
Grant says that PBS, CPB and the Department of Education put significant funding toward programming that would teach kids how to read — but that’s not what Reading Rainbow was trying to do.
“Reading Rainbow taught kids why to read,” Grant says. “You know, the love of reading — [the show] encouraged kids to pick up a book and to read.”
Obama Administration To Preserve Bush-Era Policy Of Intrusive Laptop Searches
Obama Administration To Preserve Bush-Era Policy Of Intrusive Laptop Searches
In June 2008, a federal appeals court ruled that Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) officers can search travelers’ laptops and copy their entire contents without probable cause or “reasonable suspicion.” CBP officers “can review and analyze the information transported by any individual attempting to enter, reenter, depart, pass through, or reside in the United States,” including information from laptops and other electronic devices. A CBP official dismissed growing public concern regarding this draconian policy at the time, saying the policy is akin to simply searching one’s backpack (it’s not).
The Washington Post reports today that the Obama administration will largely continue this policy:
The Obama administration will largely preserve Bush-era procedures allowing the government to search — without suspicion of wrongdoing — the contents of a traveler’s laptop computer, cellphone or other electronic device, although officials said new policies would expand oversight of such inspections.
The policy, disclosed Thursday in a pair of Department of Homeland Security directives, describes more fully than did the Bush administration the procedures by which travelers’ laptops, iPods, cameras and other digital devices can be searched and seized when they cross a U.S. border.
Privacy law expert Peter Swire noted a number of problems with this severely intrusive policy, namely that it limits privacy, free speech and business secrets, sets bad precedent for other more untrustworthy regimes throughout the world, and could discourage foreign travel to the U.S.
Obama administration officials say that more protections have been put in place. In one new “oversight,” CBP officers “should now generally take no more than 5 days” to conduct searchers (more than enough time to copy the entire contents of large hard drives). Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said the new policy “strike[s] the balance between respecting the civil liberties and privacy of all travelers.” Civil Liberties advocates disagree:
“Under the policy begun by Bush and now continued by Obama, the government can open your laptop and read your medical records, financial records, e-mails, work product and personal correspondence — all without any suspicion of illegal activity,” said Elizabeth Goitein, who leads the liberty and national security project at the nonprofit Brennan Center for Justice.
The Center for American Progress Action Fund and the Electronic Frontier Foundation mobilized action campaigns last year calling on citizens to urge the federal government to abandon this policy. The Post reports that according to DHS data, “[b]etween October 2008 and Aug. 11, more than 221 million travelers passed through CBP checkpoints. About 1,000 laptop searches were performed, only 46 in-depth.”
Will work for Bush be a liability for former staffers running for office?
Will work for Bush be a liability for former staffers running for office?
The Hill reports that at least eight former Bushies are now running for elected office, and some are trying to hide their administration tenure. For example, Tim Nank, who is running for a seat in the Virginia House of Delegates and worked in the White House on counterterrorism issues, said that he isn’t going out of his way to advertise his work for President Bush:
Having the Bush White House on their résumés is both a political positive and a negative for candidates. On one hand, Nank said, it could help him with his right flank and encourage the base to turn out for him. On the other, he is not going out of his way to advertise his work for President Bush.
“President Bush’s popularity rating is obviously very low, and I think the people in my district would probably not look favorably on that,” Nank said, adding, “I haven’t had a lot of people ask me where I worked. They usually ask where I work.”
However, others, such as former administration and campaign aide David Castillo, who will be running against Rep. Brian Baird (D-WA), said that he is “hoping to utilize my Bush-Cheney relationships to the fullest extent I can.”
Bush’s ‘Trusted Adviser’ Rob Portman Fails To Mention Former Boss On Campaign Website
Bush’s ‘Trusted Adviser’ Rob Portman Fails To Mention Former Boss On Campaign Website
Rob Portman is running for Ohio’s U.S. Senate seat in 2010 that is being vacated by retiring-Sen. George Voinovich (R). But Portman is also running from someone. Portman, who spent 12 years representing Ohio’s 2nd Congressional district has a campaign website that wants Ohioans to know he grew up learning the value of “hard work, leadership, and fiscal responsibility.” Notably, however, there’s an important name missing from Portman’s biography: George W. Bush.
For a politician who served in President Bush’s cabinet and who spent “his entire career in the orbit of the Bush family,” it’s a notable omission. In 2005, Portman gave up his congressional seat to serve as Bush’s U.S. Trade Representative and, later, as Office of Management and Budget Director. The AP wrote of Portman: “For an administration that cherishes loyalty, it’s difficult to find a more faithful supporter [of President Bush] than Rob Portman.” Bush, in turn, showered his “good friend” with praise:
I am here to say goodbye to a good friend. … Recently, Rob Portman came and told me that after 14 years of public service in Washington, he’s ready to head home to be with Jane and the family. I’ve known him for many years. There’s no finer man in public service than Rob Portman. He’s been a trusted adviser, and Laura and I are going to miss him. … I thank Rob for his service and good advice and, most of all, his friendship.
Self-described on his website as a “budget hawk,” Portman’s record under Bush proves otherwise. Over the period of Portman’s tenure, the budget deficit “nearly doubled.” The nation’s unemployment rate ballooned from 4.6 percent to 7.6 percent by the time Bush left office. Only 26 percent of Ohioans approved of Bush’s handling of the economy in 2008.
Now, Bush’s “trusted adviser” doesn’t seem anxious to acknowledge all the “good advice” he gave to President Bush.
Cheney ‘Got In The President’s Face’ Over Scooter Libby Pardon
Cheney ‘Got In The President’s Face’ Over Scooter Libby Pardon
Time Magazine reports today on the “final and painful piece of business” President Bush and Vice President Cheney debated in the waning days of the Bush administration: whether or not Bush would pardon Cheney’s top aide Scooter Libby, who had lied to prosecutors in the Valerie Plame CIA leak case. For over a month, Cheney “had been pleading, cajoling, even pestering Bush” to pardon Libby. Aides said Cheney “seemed prepared to push his nine-year-old relationship with Bush to the breaking point — and perhaps past it — over the fate” of Libby. In the end, he wasn’t pleased with the result:
Cheney’s persistence became nearly as big an issue as the pardon itself. “Cheney really got in the President’s face,” says a longtime Bush-family source. “He just wouldn’t give it up.” [...]
Bush would decide alone. In private, he was bothered by Libby’s lack of repentance. … A few days later, about a week before they would become private citizens, Bush pulled Cheney aside after a morning meeting and told him there would be no pardon. Cheney looked stricken. Most officials respond to a presidential rebuff with a polite thanks for considering the request in the first place. But Cheney, an observer says, “expressed his disappointment and disagreement with the decision … He didn’t take it well.”
Some Bush aides suspected there was “darker possibility” for his motives than simply wanting to save an old friend. As a former Bush senior aide explained, “I’m sure the President and [chief of staff] Josh [Bolten] and Fred had a concern that somewhere, deep in there, there was a cover-up.”
After Bush informed Cheney of his decision, Libby then asked to plead his case to Bush himself, but was directed to White House Counsel Fred Fielding. Three days before Bush’s presidency was to expire, Libby met with Fielding, who “kept listening for signs of remorse. But none came.” Bush finally met with his personal lawyer and trusted adviser Jim Sharp:
If the presidential staff were polled, the result would be 100 to 1 against a pardon, Bush joked. Then he turned to Sharp. “What’s the bottom line here? Did this guy lie or not?”
The lawyer, who had followed the case very closely, replied affirmatively. Bush indicated that he had already come to that conclusion too. “O.K., that’s it,” Bush said.
With just one day left in the Bush administration, Bush again informed Cheney that Libby would get no pardon. In an interview with the Weekly Standard’s Stephen Hayes shortly after leaving office, Cheney expressed his dismay at the decision. “[Libby] was the victim of a serious miscarriage of justice,” Cheney complained, “and I strongly believe that he deserved a presidential pardon. Obviously, I disagree with President Bush’s decision.”
Texas Tech Administrators Brush Aside Outcry Over Gonzales Hiring, Defend $100,000 Salary
Texas Tech Administrators Brush Aside Outcry Over Gonzales Hiring, Defend $100,000 Salary
Last week, Texas Tech announced that it had offered former Bush attorney general Alberto Gonzales a position to teach political science during the upcoming fall semester. Gonzales will be a visiting professor leading a course on “contemporary issues in the executive branch” and focusing on “recruiting and retaining first generation and under-represented students.”
Reactions from angry students and alumni were swift. Two Facebook groups with several hundred members total have even popped up:
The Daily Toreador, the student newspaper, wrote an editorial saying that Gonzales was Texas Tech’s worst hire since controversial coach Bob Knight. The editors noted that while students may be excited to take a class from such a notorious figure, “when he’s talking about the right thing to do…remember his lasting image in American politics“:
By leaving Capitol Hill in disgrace, Gonzales did not fulfill his duty as attorney general, and he did not reach his full potential as a role model for minorities.
So why hire him?
This trumps hiring a fiery coach from Indiana known for tossing a chair across a basketball court. Gonzales is notoriously accused of much more serious problems.
One point of contention is the former attorney general’s salary. Gonzales, a visiting professor, will be earning $100,000 for the year — which is approximately what full professors make — in addition to any speaking and mediation fees he does for outside work. Tech Provost Bob Smith has defended the pay, saying that it’s appropriate for someone “with a national presence and a long list of accomplishments.” Texas Tech alumni and high school government teacher David Ring said that making $100,000 “to teach one section of no more than 15 students…doesn’t seem like a fare shake to those professors at the school who, I don’t know, haven’t perjured themselves in front of the U.S. Congress.”
One Texas Tech faculty member said that administrators at the school don’t value a liberal arts education. She noted that at a Texas legislative hearing last year, Chancellor Kent Hance — who considers Gonzales a “good friend” — said that “research on ‘the best part of Shakespeare’s play’ isn’t on the same level as the research his university is conducting for the Defense Department.”
Hance is largely ignoring the criticism. He said that he received a “substantial number” of supportive e-mails about the hire, and just nine critical ones. He added that “he wasn’t dwelling on the negative ones because they didn’t come from loyal university donors.”
Former Bush ‘domestic policy czar’ Karl Rove now rips czars as a ‘giant expansion of presidential power.’
Former Bush ‘domestic policy czar’ Karl Rove now rips czars as a ‘giant expansion of presidential power.’
Today on Twitter, former Bush White House adviser Karl Rove responded to questions posed by CopyChaser asking “@KarlRove What’s going on with all the czars? Is Obama’s strategy to change the engine of our success as a nation: freedom & capitalism?” and “@KarlRove And do we need both a ‘green’ czar and a ‘climate’ czar?” In response, Rove had this to say:
It is surprising that Rove finds the appointment of czars to be “a giant expansion of presidential power” because he actually served as the “domestic policy czar” in the Bush White House. In fact, President Bush himself appointed numerous czars in order to deal with various public crises and controversies, including a “cybersecurity czar,” “regulatory czar,” “AIDS czar,” “bird-flu czar” and “Katrina czar.” Moreover, Rove’s criticism of Obama is ironic, given his role in an administration that was marked by the expansion of executive power.
Bush Library Foundation President: Saddam’s Gun A Symbol That Bush ‘Disarmed Him Literally’
Bush Library Foundation President: Saddam’s Gun A Symbol That Bush ‘Disarmed Him Literally’
The New York Times reports today that when President Bush opens his library at Southern Methodist University in 2013, “visitors will most likely get to see one of his most treasured items: Saddam Hussein’s pistol.”
The Times notes that when visitors came to the White House, Bush often liked to show off the gun, which was found on Saddam when he was captured by U.S. special forces in December 2003. Referring to the gun’s historical value, Bush Library Foundation President Mark Langdale presented an interesting twist on its symbolism:
Mark Langdale, the president of the George W. Bush Foundation, said the library would use items to highlight 25 of Mr. Bush’s presidential decisions. “The gun is an interesting artifact, and it tells you that the United States captured Saddam Hussein and disarmed him literally,” Mr. Langdale said. “How we fit that into the decision to go to war, we haven’t gotten to that point yet.”
“Disarmed him literally”? Saddam was already disarmed before the U.S.-led invasion. Maybe if the U.N. team that disarmed Iraq after the 1991 Gulf War had possession of the gun, then Langdale’s metaphor would make sense. Moreover, when Bush said he wanted to “disarm” Saddam, he was referring to the Iraqi dictator’s non-existent WMD — not his personal handgun.
“It represents this Texas notion of the white hats taking out the black hats and keeping the trophy,” Rice University history professor Douglas Brinkley said, referring to Saddam’s pistol. “It’s a True West magazine kind of pulp western mentality. For President Bush, this pistol represents his greatest moment of triumph, like the F.B.I. keeping Dillinger’s gun. He wants people generations from now to see the gun and say, ‘He got the bad guy.’”
Armitage: Obama conducting foreign policy ‘in a more intelligent way’ than Bush.
Armitage: Obama conducting foreign policy ‘in a more intelligent way’ than Bush.
Former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage spoke earlier this week at the Missouri Boys State, an event that was held on the campus of the University of Central Missouri. During the question and answer period, Armitage was asked about President Obama’s “softer force when dealing with other nations.” “Mr. Obama is in some ways presenting a much better face to the world. I wouldn’t call it a soft face, I’d call it a smart face,” Armitage replied. He then took a subtle dig at President Bush:
ARMITAGE: I think he’s using both our soft and hard power in a more intelligent way. [...] I think he’s using our power more intelligently. And using all the tools in our kit box now, in our tool box. Mr. Bush just used sanctions and force. And I think this gives us a better opportunity to prevail. What is soft power? It’s the ability to attract. You want to persuade, you want to attract them. Hard power is coercive. Well, force them to do something. If you can attract people I think it’s always better. It seems to last longer.
Earlier in the discussion, Armitage said he disagrees with Vice President Cheney’s criticism of the Obama administration adding that he should “pipe down.” “I think it’s unseemly,” Armitage said. Later, referring to Colin Powell’s criticism of Republican Party, Armitage said that Powell is just trying to get the GOP to stop acting “like a bunch of knuckleheads.”
Fleischer Claims ‘Substantial Reform Movement In Iran’ Is ‘Because Of George W. Bush’s Tough Policies’
Fleischer Claims ‘Substantial Reform Movement In Iran’ Is ‘Because Of George W. Bush’s Tough Policies’
The Washington Post’s Al Kamen reports this morning that former Bush flack Ari Fleischer emailed fellow Post reporter Glenn Kessler before any results had been issued in Iran’s hotly-contested presidential election to give credit to his former boss for the “reformists’ surge” there. “[O]ne of the reasons there is a substantial reform movement in Iran — particularly among its young people — is because of George W. Bush’s tough policies,” Fleischer wrote. He continued:
“A big push for reform is because of the desire of Iranians to get out from sanctions, to put an end to the country’s international ostracism,” Fleischer wrote and, most interestingly, “because Shiites in particular see Shiites in Iraq having more freedoms than they do. Bush’s tough policies have helped give rise to the reformists and I think we’re witnessing that today.” [...]
So “I think it’s fair to say the George Bush’s Freedom Agenda planted seeds that have started to grow in the Middle East,” Fleischer concluded.
Aside from the fact that Fleischer’s claim cannot really ever be verified (a tactic former Bush administration officials use when defending their failed policies), it’s clear that Iran’s power in the region has grown significantly in the region since 2001 — a point one wonders if Fleischer will also give Bush credit for.
The Shiites’ “freedom” in Iraq has actually emboldened Iran’s standing and created a key new ally in the region. Iran has emerged as the chief beneficiary of Bush’s fool’s errand in Iraq. As journalist Robert Dreyfuss noted, “Washington’s decision to topple Saddam’s government has put in place a ruling elite that is far closer to Iran than it is to the United States.” But also, Iran’s nuclear program has progressed greatly during the Bush years. Despite his “tough” policies, Iran has inched closer to a nuclear weapon, raising the possibility of greater instability in the region and even perhaps a new war.
It is also worth noting that hardliner Mahmoud Ahmadinejad became Iran’s president in 2005 (during Bush’s presidency), supplanting a former moderate who held the office. In fact, reformers there said at the time that they wanted the Bush administration to tone down the harsh rhetoric:
“You are harmful for us. We try to tell politicians in Washington, D.C., please don’t do anything in favor of reform or to promote democracy in Iran. Because in 100% of the cases, it benefits the right wing,” said Saeed Leylaz, a business consultant and advocate of economic reform and greater dialogue with the West.
Steve Benen notes of Flesicher, “[W]hat’s a ‘veteran spinmeister’ to do? Tell reporters on Friday that before anyone looks favorably on the current American leadership, it’s more important to extol the previous American leadership — you know, the one who was widely reviled throughout the Middle East.”
Boehner: Republicans ‘took it in the shorts with Bush-Cheney.’
Boehner: Republicans ‘took it in the shorts with Bush-Cheney.’
In an interview with ABC’s George Stephanopoulos, House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) pinned the blame for his party’s current failures on the Bush presidency:
“We’re digging ourselves out of a deep hole,” he admitted. “We took it in the shorts with Bush-Cheney, the Iraq War, and by sacrificing fiscal responsibility to hold power.”
Boehner has only to blame to himself. He voted to authorize use of military force against Iraq, and voted against a House-approved Iraq withdrawal in 2007. He also voted for the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts, which were largely responsible for turning our nation’s surplus into a massive deficit. As Boehner himself said in 2006, “I think that Republicans ought to stand up and support George W. Bush for the job that he’s done.” (HT: Political Wire)
Rove: Bush Administration Has ‘No’ Responsibility For Current Budget Deficits
Rove: Bush Administration Has ‘No’ Responsibility For Current Budget Deficits
Last night on Fox News, former top Bush adviser Karl Rove chastised President Obama for his economic recovery package Congress passed last February and criticized him for his new proposal to enact “pay as you go” budgeting rules — paying for spending increases by either raising taxes or budget cuts.
“This is a cosmetic gesture. This guy is going to run up a $1.8 trillion deficit. That’s what it’s projected to be this year,” Rove complained. But when host Greta Van Susteren asked if the Bush administration is responsible for any of the deficit, Rove replied, “No.”:
VAN SUSTEREN: Do you take some responsibility, meaning you, the Bush eight years, for this…
ROVE: No.
VAN SUSTEREN: You take absolutely no responsibility? Because…
ROVE: No.
Watch it:
Rove’s denial is odd, not only because the Bush administration turned President Clinton’s budget surplus into massive deficits and left with nearly half a trillion dollars in the hole, but also because Bush presided over the largest debt increase of any U.S. president in history. But the timing of Rove’s denial is odd as well because the New York Times published yesterday the results of an examination of Congressional Budget Office reports going back almost a decade which found that Obama “is responsible for only a sliver of the deficits” and most of his adminstration’s contribution to the deficit is a result of continuing Bush policies:
About 33 percent of the swing stems from new legislation signed by Mr. Bush. That legislation, like his tax cuts and the Medicare prescription drug benefit, not only continue to cost the government but have also increased interest payments on the national debt.
Mr. Obama’s main contribution to the deficit is his extension of several Bush policies, like the Iraq war and tax cuts for households making less than $250,000. Such policies — together with the Wall Street bailout, which was signed by Mr. Bush and supported by Mr. Obama — account for 20 percent of the swing.
“In other words,” Matt Yglesias writes, “the very high deficits are not Obama’s fault according to any normal way of assessing political blame.” See Yglesias’s pie chart illustrating the Times’s story here.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll